Freddie Mac: Quality & Condition Ratings

[George Hatch]

[shrugs] The credibility of assignment results is always measured in the context of the intended use.

The 2-part test for SOW decisions refers to the expectations of users for the similar assignment plus the peers actions when performing a similar assignment. Not to whatever Richard Hagar or George Dell or others are selling to appraisers.

These are the minimums. There is no maximum so appraisers are always free to do as much "more" as they want. What they are not free to do is to say that everyone else is required under USPAP to do the same extras they add, because that's not what the document says.

Same applies to the add-ons at the users. They say what they say, and that's it.

 

[J Grant]

Something that is accurate is exact and true. It's important to be accurate in the kitchen with your measurements and in the courtroom with your testimony.

The adjective accurate comes from the Latin roots ad curare, meaning "to take care," and that is precisely what you do when you make sure something is accurate. You take care to make sure it is perfectly correct: an accurate answer, an accurate headcount, an accurate assessment of the problem. By adding the Latin root in, meaning not, you can make the antonym inaccurate (not accurate).

The reason I posted this definition is that accurate does not not always statically correct or a numerical target was hit ( though it can be)

Clearly, the URAR saying an accurate opinion is self-contradictory - an opinion can not be accurate because it si not a fact; however, an opinion can be accurately developed (with care, worthy of belief), or as accurate as possible - which falls short of perfection but then neither are AVM's or other computer/statistical models perfect. They can appear impressive with charts and stats and numbers, but in reality they are no better wrt developing a credible value - and might be worse since they give a false perception of precision.

 

[George Hatch]

We're still charged with acting in good faith and figuring out what it will take to get to "meaningful and not misleading to intended users." If we know they don't actually expect the one number to be the one-and-only-possible expression of MV then it doesn't become an act of bad faith on our part to proceed accordingly. Do as best we can.

 

[J Grant]

We're still charged with acting in good faith and figuring out what it will take to get to "meaningful and not misleading to intended users." If we know they don't actually expect the one number to be the one-and-only-possible expression of MV then it doesn't become an act of bad faith on our part to proceed accordingly. Do as best we can.

I agree and I was always astonished when some appraisers say that an appraiser is not "good enough" for a point value- since those lost souls believed that their OMV for one client use was expected to be an omnipotent, universally accepted value /becomes a fact.

 

[George Hatch]

Like I said, I've personally never done a range in lieu of a point value. But I've done both many times. I do it in reviews, too.